Madhya Pradesh High Court
In Reference (Suo Motu) vs Dr. N.S. Poonia on 6 October, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPU R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
CONTEMPT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.12 of 2013
BETWEEN:-
IN REFERENCE (SUO MOTU)
.... PETITIONER
(SHRI ASHISH SHROTI - ADVOCATE APPEARS AS AMICUS
CURIAE AND SHRI S.S. CHOUHAN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR THE STATE)
AND
DR. N.S. POONIA S/O SHER SINGH POONIA R/O
PATIALA HOUSE, 68, VISHNUPURI MAIN,
INDORE (M.P.)
.... RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ABHINAV SINGH THAKUR - ADVOCATE)
CONTEMPT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.4 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
IN REFERENCE (SUO MOTU)
.... PETITIONER
(SHRI ASHISH SHROTI - ADVOCATE APPEARS AS AMICUS
CURIAE AND
SHRI S.S. CHOUHAN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
STATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 10/6/2023
2:12:50 PM
2
AND
DR. N.S. POONIA S/O SHER SINGH POONIA R/O
PATIALA HOUSE, 68, VISHNUPURI MAIN,
INDORE (M.P.)
.... RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ABHINAV SINGH THAKUR - ADVOCATE)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 20.09.2023
Pronounced on : 06.10.2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These contempt petitions (criminal) having been heard and
reserved for orders, coming on for pronouncement this day, Hon'ble
Shri Justice Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
These suo motu contempt proceedings have been initiated against
respondent - Narinder Singh Poonia as per the order given by the then
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice dated 09.07.2013.
2. For effective adjudication of the instant petitions, the facts
leading to initiation of the proceedings are required to be dealt with in a
nutshell. It is undisputed that the respondent was the Founder & Editor
and Publisher of a journal titled as 'Lost Justice'. He had published
certain articles in the journal 'Lost Justice' in Volume 03 Issue No.03 of
July to September, 2010, making allegations against certain sitting
Judges of this Court, indicating and commenting about the manner in
which certain cases were decided by them on the judicial side. Finding
the publication to be amounting to contempt of court, after due
approval of the Acting Chief Justice on 09.07.2023, suo-motu
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 10/6/2023
2:12:50 PM
proceedings have been initiated against the respondent under Section
2(c)(i) and (ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
3. The comments which have been published in the said journal
clearly scandalize the image of the judiciary and High Court Judges in
the State of Madhya Pradesh.
4. On notice being issued, a detailed reply has been filed by the
respondent on 16.09.2013 denying the allegations. It is contended by
the respondent that he has not committed any contempt neither civil nor
criminal. At the same time, I.A. No.21216 of 2013 was filed seeking
reopening of all the cases in the matter which are under the reference of
Concr. No.12 of 2013. Vide order dated 04.02.2016, this application as
well as ten other applications were rejected on merits.
5. Thereafter, vide order dated 17.01.2018 passed in Concr. No.12
of 2013, it was found that the charges as contemplated under Section
15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 have not been framed
against the respondent. Therefore, the charges have been framed so as
to enable the respondent to answer each one of them. The same reads as
follows :
1. "Whatever reached HC was judicially killed paving path for
Hoarders around the country. Questionable rulings were relied
to generate questionable judgments and it should continue. The
menace should extend to all the essential commodities and
those around the country." (page 181)
2. "This is how system as a whole protects and promoters
crime, money-grabbing, property-grabbing, hoarding, black-
marketing, market-inflation and everything which crushes the
poor public." (page 181)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 10/6/2023
2:12:50 PM
3. "Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (ECA-1955) was flouted
by 57 dealers in every manner. Courtesy, senior advocates who
appear on behalf of offenders only to mislead the court, the
government advocates who gain more by keeping their mouths
shut and the HC Judges who can even argue-&-generate
evidence in favour of offencers." (page 182)
4. "This seniormost Judge of MPHC at Jabalpur (Justice RS
Garg on behalf DB) created a disastrous foundation of giving a
clean chit to who was an outlaw in every respect- a 'judgment'
which influenced the junior colleagues even at other benches of
the court." (page 183)
5. "Performance of justice RS Garg (at Jabalpur)and of Justice
S.S.Dwivedi (at Gwalior) tarnished the image of MPHC and of
the judiciary from where ascertained offenders escaped at the
expenses of public rights- those rights which got demolished
and humiliated." (page 183)
6. "Most effortful Justice Dwivedi deserves to be impeached
for his overall performance. One Judge is not more important
than nation as a whole, and a Judge (Justice RS Garg) after
retirement is also accountable being still richly nourished by
the nation." (page 183)
7. "Strange are the ways of advocacy. Books say advocates are
officers of the court whose only function is to assist
administration of justice but, instantly, every senior advocate of
the State deployed his professional skill to shield the richly
paying offenders by misdirecting the very issue, to mislead and
influence the HC Judges." (page 183-184)
8. "For this Judgment, the author would not blame Justice SS
Jha. As junior-companion of Justice RS Garg in the DB he
must have nothing to do except to sign on the order passed by
his senior, in fact, almost very junior of Justice Garg has been
doing that." (page 192-193)
9. "Justice RS Garg - the most frequently transferred Judge of
Indian High Courts- has shown this judicial "responsibility"
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 10/6/2023
2:12:50 PM
when he was acting Chief Justice and around his days of
retirement after 15 years of service. What made him walk over
so many rules in Order 2009 and to ignore (i) mandate of
licence for traders (Clause 3), (ii) The limit of 15 days for
applying the licence (Clause 4) even when sugar of the
petitioner stood seized after the deadline for licence-
application was also over, and (iii) Consequences of
contravening the terms of the licence-Clause 8 which provides
also for prosecution. How amendment of 29.8.09 alters all the
provisions of Order 2009? Was it the crown-&-title of the
person (Trader or no Trader) which was to decide, or, the
circumstance reflecting his acts as per ECA 1955? (page 195)
10. "His jurisprudence as senior judge of the DB traveling
through single benches of MPHC must prove disastrous for
country as a whole. This author possesses more data about
quality of "justice delivery" by Justice RS Garg in the past
including his article 2009. 3 Lost J 222-30 during service
tenure of the latter. There is no reason which such retired
functionaries should be kept richly nourished by the same
nation of which he demolished the interests-&-rights during his
tenure of service, and, for times to come. In the matter of full
relief to sugar-hoarders in MP, administration and Judiciary
are both accountable." (page 195)
11. "Subsequently at the Indore bench, this point stood raised
towards the disposal of 33 criminal revisions and, in the matter
referred by the single bench, the DB (Criminal Reference Nos.
1 to 33/2010) decided in the negative. The verdict runs as
under:
"In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer the reference
in the negative by holding that for confiscation proceedings
mens rea is not at all as essential ingredient. Competent
authority has to proceed for confiscation if the conditions
prescribed under section 6A of the ECA, 1955 are fulfilled. Let
the papers be placed before the learned single judge along with
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 10/6/2023
2:12:50 PM
this order for decision of the criminal revisions on merit in
accordance with law." (page 201)
12. "Again the same Judge, Justice S.S.Dwivedi, decided this
bunch of petitions, too. The same type of justice was delivered
as for Bunch No.1. In fact, more energy was spent for shielding
the offenders and for creating the evidence. Instead of passing
a suo motu order for prosecution of the petitioners under sec.
8(1) of the Order 2009, their confiscated material was directed
to be returned with 5% interest in case the sugar was already
auctioned. There was overall protection for the petitioners
despite the judgment being also self-conflicting." (page 202)
13. "How far it is wrong to impeach such a Judge? A prudent
analyst wonders as to why at all a High Court should do so
much of mental exercise to disprove a proved case that, too, for
giving a clean chit to offenders who were offenders in visible
terms. Such a big body of Bar in the State is not sitting with
eyes and ears closed. In fact, the 57 beneficiaries mush have
already talked to thousands of those in the society about the
manipulations in getting judicially de-hooked from herein.
Judicial corruption as answer gets into the mind of every body
and most understand even that it irreparably hits the image of
a High Court and of the judiciary in general. The author would
say, asides the speculations of judicial corruption, there has
been a strong element of judicial incompetence, too." (page
207-208)
14 "Judgment of the DB at Jabalpur Bench was also not a
binding on the Single Bench at Indore. Firstly, within the group
circumstance for the bunch of 35 petitioners differed widely
and then clearly different from that associated with just one
party reviewed at Jabalpur. If at all jurisprudence of the Single
Bench was in collision with that of the DB then the bunch of
cases should have been referred to a Full Bench. Moreover,
basic issues stood vanished in the very case decided by the
Jabalpur Seat and this vacuum kept dragged for cases at
Gwalior as well as at Indore." (page 217)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 10/6/2023
2:12:50 PM
6. The aforesaid charges were read out and explained to the
respondent and he was asked whether he wishes to say anything else.
He pleaded not guilty. His plea was recorded. Since the publication is
admitted, therefore, opportunity was granted to him to produce
evidence, if any, in support of his defence. In pursuance thereof, on
16.08.2019, statement of the respondent was recorded and by the order
dated 01.11.2019, the submission of the accused was recorded to the
effect that he does not want to file any evidence by way of an affidavit
but reserved his right to file a written statement.
7. It is pertinent to note here that vide order dated 17.01.2018
passed in Concr. No.12 of 2013, as the respondent has filed numerous
documents after initiation of contempt proceedings, the office was
directed to examine the documents which have contemptuous
comments disclosing criminal contempt so as to initiate a separate
criminal proceedings in respect of all documents which disclose
criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971. In compliance thereof, the documents have been
examined and three documents were found which have contemptuous
comments. Accordingly, a separate contempt petition (criminal) has
been registered as Concr. No.04 of 2018 which is also being decided by
this common order.
8. The statement of the contemnor has been recorded on
16.08.2019, however, vide order dated 20.09.2023, learned counsel for
the contemnor submitted that he withdraws all his pleadings with
regard to merits of this petition. He only submitted that his
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 10/6/2023
2:12:50 PM
unconditional apology may be accepted as the contemnor is aged about
85 years and is suffering from serious ailments.
9. The question that arises for consideration before this Court is
whether the comments made by the respondent with respect to the
judgments passed the Hon'ble Judges of High Court of Madhya
Pradesh come under the preview of definition of 'criminal contempt' as
defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or not.
The relevant provision is as under :-
"Criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by
words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any
other act whatsoever which--
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to
lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due
course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends
to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;
10. Therefore, a tendency to scandalise the court or tendency to
lower the authority of the court or tendency to interfere with or
tendency to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner or
tendency to challenge the authority or majesty of justice, would be a
criminal contempt. The offending act apart, any tendency if it may lead
to or tends to lower the authority of the court is a criminal contempt.
Any conduct of the contemnor which has the tendency or produces a
tendency to bring the Judge or court into contempt or tends to lower the
authority of the court would also be contempt of the court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 10/6/2023
2:12:50 PM
11. Perusal of the charges which have been levelled against the
respondent virtually amount to attempting to scandalize the image of
the court and the functioning of the court. It further maligned the image
and repute of Hon'ble Judges of the High Court and tends to lower the
majesty of this Hon'ble Court. It appears that the respondent being the
Editor has made comments upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble
Judges of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The said comments are
not in the nature of a mere fair and dispassioned critique of the
judgments but are couched in intemperate language with use of
undesirable expletives. As per charge no.6 above, it is expressed that
the Hon'ble Judge deserves to be impeached for his overall
performance. It has been expressed that the rights of the public have
been demolished and humiliated. Thus, it was a deliberate attempt
made by the respondent-contemnor to scandalize the image of the court
which clearly falls under the definition of 'criminal contempt' under
Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
12. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prashant
Bhushan and another, in Reference Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Cri.)
1 of 2020 decided on 14th of August, 2020, reported in (2021) 1 SCC
745 has considered the definition of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 and has held as under:
"It could thus be seen, that it has been held by this Court, that
hostile criticism of judges as judges or judiciary would amount
to scandalizing the Court. It has been held, that any personal
attack upon a judge in connection with the office he holds is
dealt with under law of libel or slander. Yet defamatory
publication concerning the judge as a judge brings the court or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 10/6/2023
2:12:50 PM
judges into contempt, a serious impediment to justice and an
inroad on the majesty of justice. This Court further observed,
that any caricature of a judge calculated to lower the dignity of
the court would destroy, undermine or tend to undermine
public confidence in the administration of justice or the
majesty of justice. It has been held, that imputing partiality,
corruption, bias, improper motives to a judge is scandalisation
of the court and would be contempt of the court."
13. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.C. Saxena
(Dr) vs. Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India reported in (1996) 5 SCC
216 deprecated the growing tendency to scandalise the court, which by
itself constituted 'contempt of court'. The Court observed thus:
"40. Scandalising the court, therefore, would mean hostile
criticism of judges as judges or judiciary. Any personal attack
upon a judge in connection with the office he holds is dealt
with under law of libel or slander. Yet defamatory publication
concerning the judge as a judge brings the court or judges into
contempt, a serious impediment to justice and an inroad on the
majesty of justice. Any caricature of a judge calculated to
lower the dignity of the court would destroy, undermine or tend
to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice
or the majesty of justice. It would, therefore, be scandalising
the judge as a judge, in other words, imputing partiality,
corruption, bias, improper motives to a judge is scandalisation
of the court and would be contempt of the court. Even
imputation of lack of impartiality or fairness to a judge in the
discharge of his official duties amounts to contempt. The
gravamen of the offence is that of lowering his dignity or
authority or an affront to the majesty of justice. When the
contemnor challenges the authority of the court, he interferes
with the performance of duties of judge's office or judicial
process or administration of justice or generation or
production of tendency bringing the judge or judiciary into
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 10/6/2023
2:12:50 PM
contempt. Section 2(c) of the Act, therefore, defines criminal
contempt in wider articulation that any publication, whether by
words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representations, or otherwise of any matter or the doing of any
other act whatsoever which scandalises or tends to scandalise,
or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or
prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due
course of any judicial proceeding; or interferes or tends to
interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any other manner, is a criminal
contempt. Therefore, a tendency to scandalise the court or
tendency to lower the authority of the court or tendency to
interfere with or tendency to obstruct the administration of
justice in any manner or tendency to challenge the authority or
majesty of justice, would be a criminal contempt. The offending
act apart, any tendency if it may lead to or tends to lower the
authority of the court is a criminal contempt. Any conduct of
the contemnor which has the tendency or produces a tendency
to bring the judge or court into contempt or tends to lower the
authority of the court would also be contempt of the court."
14. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Baradakanta Mishra vs High Court of Orissa reported in (1974) 1
SCC 374 has held as under:
"49. Scandalisation of the Court is a species of contempt and
may take several forms. A common form is the vilification of
the Judge. When proceedings in contempt are taken for such
vilification the question which the Court has to ask is whether
the vilification is of the Judge as a judge. (See Queen v. Gray),
[(1900) 2 QB 36, 40] or it is the vilification of the Judge as an
individual. If the latter the Judge is left to his private remedies
and the Court has no power to commit for contempt. If the
former, the Court will proceed to exercise the jurisdiction with
scrupulous care and in cases which are clear and beyond
reasonable doubt. Secondly, the Court will have also to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 10/6/2023
2:12:50 PM
consider the degree of harm caused as affecting administration
of justice and, if it is slight and beneath notice, Courts will not
punish for contempt. This salutary practice is adopted by
Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The
jurisdiction is not intended to uphold the personal dignity of
the Judges. That must rest on surer foundations. Judges rely on
their conduct itself to be its own vindication.
50. But if the attack on the Judge functioning as a judge
substantially affects administration of justice it becomes a
public mischief punishable for contempt, and it matters not
whether such an attack is based on what a judge is alleged to
have done in the exercise of his administrative responsibilities.
A judge's functions may be divisible, but his integrity and
authority are not divisible in the context of administration of
justice. An unwarranted attack on him for corrupt
administration is as potent in doing public harm as an attack
on his adjudicatory function."
15. From the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
the definition provided under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971, it is apparently clear that even an attempt to scandalize or
lower the authority of a Court falls under the definition of 'criminal
contempt'.
16. Looking to the articles in question published by the respondent-
contemnor coupled with the definition of the 'criminal contempt', the
act done by the respondent-contemnor clearly falls under the definition
of 'criminal contempt'. Under these circumstances, he is held guilty of
'criminal contempt' as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 and, therefore, is liable to be punished under Section
12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
17. Heard on the question of punishment.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 10/6/2023
2:12:50 PM
18. On being asked to address on the question of quantum of
punishment to be awarded to the contemnor, the learned counsel
appearing for the contemnor has submitted that he withdrew all his
pleadings with regard to merits of this petition and has tendered
unconditional apology on his behalf to this Court. It is submitted that
his unconditional apology may be accepted as the contemnor has been
suffering from serious ailments. It is submitted that the age of the
respondent-contemnor is 85 years. He is virtually bedridden and is
suffering from paralysis as has been shown in the medical report given
by the doctor. He has been diagnosed with unilateral hemiplegia (one
sided paralysis) and has suffered loss of speech due to multiple cerebral
strokes. It is argued that considering the age as well as the health
condition of the contemnor coupled with the fact that he is tendering
unconditional apology before this court, he may not be sent to jail,
rather he may be imposed sentence of fine instead of imposing jail
sentence.
19. Considered the arguments advanced. The age of the respondent-
contemnor is 85 years and he is bed ridden. The doctor has observed in
his report that the contemnor is unable to walk and has suffered
paralysis of right arm and right leg and has slurring of speech. The
applications seeking his exemption from personal appearance were
allowed vide order dated 20.09.2023. Considered from the totality of
the facts and circumstances as narrated above, the age of the
respondent-contemnor and his present health condition, we are of the
view that it would be just and appropriate to impose a punishment of
payment of fine.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 10/6/2023
2:12:50 PM
20. For all the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following order :
(i) The respondent-contemnor is held guilty of having
committed a criminal contempt as defined under Section
2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
(ii) The respondent-contemnor shall pay the fine of
Rs.4,000/- (Rs.2000/- each towards these two contempt
proceedings) before the Registry of this Court within a
period of fifteen days from the date of this order, failing
which he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment of ten
days. He is further warned to remain cautious in future.
21. Accordingly, these contempt petitions are disposed off finally.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
vinod
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 10/6/2023
2:12:50 PM
